Forum NewsForumsHTF Chat Hardware ReviewsSoftware Reviews HTF Events
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Live Search: 
Web Search: 
 
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum




 
Forum Jump

Forum Sponsors

Home Theater Forum > Entertainment and Media > Movies (Theatrical)
[ Track the Films You Watch (2005) ]

Post New Thread  Reply

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-08-2005, 06:54 PM   #1351 of 2004
Joe Karlosi
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,608

You would have to post your list here now, Gary, as you didn't reserve a spot at the beginning of the year in one of the first three pages. You just have to remember what page your list is located on, when you want to add new titles.

Usually, the lists are kept early in the thread and updated as you watch new films. The rest of the thread is discussion. But you can join any time.
Joe Karlosi is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-08-2005, 08:25 PM   #1352 of 2004
Gary Palmer
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 144

Thanks for that, Joe - much appreciated!
Gary Palmer is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 09:29 AM   #1353 of 2004
Mario Gauci
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,602

DRACULA (1931) - US Version ***1/2; Spanish Version ***: The Browning/Lugosi 'classic' has always been one of my favorite Universal horror films but, ever since the simultaneously-produced 'rival' Spanish version resurfaced, the 'original' has taken a beating by fans and historians alike - mainly because the latter features superior camerawork! This, however, is the ONLY area where it can lay a claim to be better in when compared to the US version (the fact that leading lady Lupita Tovar had a sexier wardrobe than Helen Chandler shouldn't even be considered, I guess). Still, the fact that on the DVD the opinion that the seminal US version is the inferior one seems to be shared by quite a few people hasn't done it any favors!

I remember being impressed by the Spanish version when I first watched it in 2001, singling out for praise the performance of Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield and, of course, George Robinson's cinematography. However, coming back to it now, I felt that Rubio's hysterical rendering of the character (which reminded me of Gene Wilder in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN [1974] of all people!) was nowhere nearly as nuanced as Dwight Frye's unforgettable characterization in the US version. Regarding the "superior camerawork", I guess this is true for individual sequences (Dracula's introduction, for instance) but, frankly, I never felt that Karl Freund - a pioneer of the moving camera - had somehow been restrained by Tod Browning, who admittedly wasn't very fond of this technique. Given that of late we've also been faced by the ridiculous assumption that Browning didn't actually direct the film, he couldn't have - since he wasn't even there!!

It may be however, that since frequent Browning collaborator Lon Chaney (who had been slated for the title role) died before shooting began, the director sort of lost heart in the project - coupled also with the fact that the script was rather talky, another element with which Browning felt uneasy! Well, whatever went on behind the scenes, for me what's in front remains one of the highlights of the American horror film - from the marvelous dialogue (especially as delivered - each in their own unique way - by Lugosi, Frye and Edward Van Sloan), irreproachable performances (Frye and Van Sloan were at their best, while Lugosi only ever really came close with THE BLACK CAT [1934] and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN [1939]) and memorable individual scenes (the entire first act set in Transylvania, the confrontation scenes between Dracula and his nemesis Professor Van Helsing, Renfield's various ravings). The tame ending may appear anti-climactic to most people but I honestly was never bothered by it! If anything, this was remedied in any number of ways in subsequent outings...

Which brings us back to the Spanish DRACULA: like I said, the film is an interesting and altogether pleasing 'alternate' to the Lugosi version...but it is fatally compromised by the inadequate leading performance of Carlos Villarias, whose bulging eyes and feral snarls can't hold a candle to Lugosi's definitive screen vampire! This version does go to places where the American doesn't (Browning shies away from the vampire attacks, for instance) and even features 'new' scenes like the aftermath of the vampiric Lucy's demise - but, at 104 minutes (a full half-hour longer than the US version, when considering that they were following the same script!) it's way overlong for its own good. The Browning/Lugosi version is often criticized for its sluggishness but this one actually moves at a snail's pace: take, for instance, the famous scene where Dracula is exposed by the mirror - Lugosi knocks the box down immediately, while Villarias takes forever to do so (even if his resolution is effectively flamboyant nonetheless).

A word about the DVD quality: disappointingly, the Spanish version features closed-captions (for the hearing-impaired) rather than proper subtitles. As for the US version, the print utilized for this particular transfer (which differs from that of the original, and more satisfactory, 1999 release) is a bit too dark for my taste and the dialogue sometimes was hard to catch due to the incessant hiss on the soundtrack! It also reverts to the 'original' single groan during Dracula's staking (instead of the elongated variant available on the earlier disc)...but does feature a bit of music at the end of the Opera sequence, which had been missing from the previous edition!! Well, this only means that it's worth keeping both copies of DRACULA as neither is really definitive.../
Mario Gauci is online now Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 02:32 PM   #1354 of 2004
Michael Elliott
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,206

Mario, Joe's outta here for a few days so let me bash Lugosi without him seeing.

Not really but....

I'm rather shocked you enjoy Tod Browning's sound films as much as you do considering you've seen several of his silents. There's a thread over at MonsterKid about what he did or didn't direct and Tom Weaver posts a lot of "clues" to why Browning didn't direct DRACULA and I've gotta agree with him.

Browning was a very unique silent director with his visual style and the underlined atmosphere he could bring to a film. The films were fast paced as well. You said the Spanish DRACULA only had better camerawork but to me that's one of the big keys to why Browning didn't direct the American version or he simply didn't know how to direct a sound film. Just compare THE UNKNOWN to his sound films and I think it's pretty clear something got lost between the silent and sound films. You can view THE WICKED DARLING and various other silents and see Browning's trademark camerawork going but all of this is missing from his sound films.

Another big thing is the pacing to his silent films, which can be spotted as early as 1914 with his first film BY THE SUN'S RAYS. The rumored director of DRACULA is Karl Freund. Since you just watched his THE MUMMY and DRACULA, wouldn't you agree that these two films have a lot more in common than a silent Browning versus DRACULA? THE MUMMY and DRACULA contain the same pace, the same camerawork and the overall same feel. The only real difference is the monsters. If we can look at films and tell a director's trademarks then I think these two films seem an awful lot alike.

I think there's a difference between a "slow pace" and a "boring pace". I'd put DRACULA at a boring pace while THE MUMMY at a slow pace, which fits that film fine. Either way, these things are a lot different than the early Browning.


Michael Elliott is online now Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 04:30 PM   #1355 of 2004
Joe Karlosi
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,608

I'm still here, Michael

Mario -- I pretty much agree with all you've said, regarding both versions of DRACULA (the U.S. and the Spanish).
Joe Karlosi is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 04:34 PM   #1356 of 2004
Mario Gauci
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,602

Michael,


Can you provide a link to Weaver's comments about who directed what in DRACULA (1931)?
Mario Gauci is online now Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 05:43 PM   #1357 of 2004
John-Paul
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 16

Send a message via AIM to John-Paul Send a message via Yahoo to John-Paul
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1998)
1/2

DIRECTOR: T. Gilliam

This movie is stupid, pointless, annoying and tedious.... and I like it! There's something likeable about this movie but I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe it's the performances from Depp and Del Toro, which are top-notch or maybe it's the great cast of cameos (Ricci, Helmond, Busey) or maybe it's the fact that this actually (supposidly) happened.... at least in Thompson's head.

COMING TOMORROW: "Straight-Jacket (2004)" and "Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)"
John-Paul is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 06:49 PM   #1358 of 2004
george kaplan
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 14,313

This movie is stupid, pointless, annoying and tedious
I agree with that part of your review.



"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock

"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I am vastly superior to everyone else." - Ramrod Clerk
george kaplan is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 07:32 PM   #1359 of 2004
Adam_S
Adam_S
Member
 
Location: Marina del Rey, CA
Join Date: Feb 2001
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 5,060

Secondhand Lions -
08/05/2005
OARDVD


Sure the film is haphazard and delightfully silly with it's reliance on flashbacks but that's an intrinsic part of the charm that makes the film work. It's also part of what holds it back from greatness, they never quite found the storytelling/editing/filmmaking balance between the two, there is a beautiful balance between the prologue and the main film and the main film and the coda. The transistion through the wonderful comics of the adult Walter is perfectly handled, we want to see much more, it communicates exactly right and doesn't distract from the rest of the film-- if this sort of assured balance had been maintained when transitioning between the background of the uncles and the main body of the story the film would be perfect. As it is, I think we get too much flashback when the strengths of the film lie in every crusty damned thing Robert Duvall does . My only other annoyance with the film is the 'conditions' scene at the end of the film, which is unnecessary and doesn't achieve much but schmaltzyness.

Very good film that is utterly delightful to watch with family. Haley Joel Osment is wonderful and Duvall and Caine are fabulous to watch--their interaction and acting elevate this film up to a near classic level.


Adam_S is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 08-09-2005, 11:30 PM   #1360 of 2004
Michael Elliott
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,206

Mario, the post was erased due to a hacker but I'm sure someone could start a new thread or, since Joe is still here, he could post some things from Universal Horrors.

Either way, I'm more interested in your eyes considering you've seen many of the silents.

By the way Joe: http://www.xploitedcinema.com/dvds/dvds.asp?title=5173


08/07/05

Picture Snatcher (1933)

Fast paced, hard hitting drama from Warner Bros. has a gangster (James Cagney) being released from prison when he decides to go straight and gets a job for a tabloid newspaper as a cameraman. Everything is going fine until he breaks all the rules to take a picture of a woman in the electric chair. This is a pretty interesting film especially today when there’s so much controversy surrounding tabloid photographers so I guess this new trend was around back in the day as well. Cagney is energetic as ever and Ralph Bellamy delivers a strong performance as the alcoholic editor. A good little pre-code that, according to the Robert Osbourne intro, was made because Warner wanted a gangster picture but due to all the controversy surrounding them, put Cagney in as the photographer.

”G” Men (1935)

Raised by a gangster as a child, James Cagney grows up to be a lawyer but after a friend’s murdered by the mob he decides to join the FBI. This film is a tad bit overrated but Cagney’s performance makes it worth seeing as do all the wonderful shoot outs. The story isn’t as strong as other films in the genre but on its own it isn’t too bad.

Boy Meets Girl (1938)

Extremely poor and unfunny spoof of Hollywood has two screenwriters (James Cagney/Pat O’Brien) coming up with a scheme to make their next film a hit. There’s a lot of fast talking and some slapstick but I can’t help but feel this should have been a film with The Marx Brothers instead. Cagney and O’Brien make a great team in dramas but their comedy act here just doesn’t work. The laughs are pushed so hard that it becomes rather annoying very quickly. Ralph Bellamy co-stars.

08/09/05

Guide for the Married Man, A (1967)

Walter Matthau gets tips on the best way to cheat on his wife without being caught. This is a cute comedy directed by Gene Kelly that has several “cute” moments but not too many funny ones, which really hurt it somewhat for me. I think the biggest problem is that Matthau really isn’t given much to do, which really wastes his talent. He’s mainly standing around listening to advice when it might have been funnier had he been giving it. Lucille Ball, Jack Benny, Art Carney, Polly Bergen, Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner and Jayne Mansfield co-star.


Michael Elliott is online now Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post